The author does well to point the finger for the New Groupthink at contemporary educational practices--which, on the one hand, extol "nurturing each student's uniqueness" but then only value that uniqueness if it is amenable to "being a collaborative team player." The fact is, for a lot of bright people, they feel forced into perpetual collaboration, and experience it like unto that of enduring extended root canals.
As an entrepreneur, I have no problem whatsoever in working with geniuses who need to be alone to exercise their genius. Sure, they need to be able to have some kind of contact,, and to collaborate, with others, even if on a limited basis. (Even Picasso had to deal with models, agents, and art dealers.) But letting such individuals work on very long leashes helps everyone, and furthers the work of the organization.
Yes, one of my kids teachers even used a sports team analogy for "uniqueness" -- "like a hockey team needs a centre, a right winger, a defenceman and a goalie, everybody has their place".
She didn't get it when I asked where the long distance runner fit in.
Take television for example. Yes, television has a platform. But perhaps the biggest mistake that broadcast television networks are making at this moment is that they do not broadcast all of their programming simultaneously on the Internet, ads and all. By becoming less hardware platform dependent, television broadcasters would gain viewers.
It is not just, as the author says, that "the world is moving into platforms in decisive ways." The world is moving into certain _types_ of platforms--namely, to _portable, multipurpose_ platforms.
Remember dedicated telephones from the pre-wireless era? Compare that to the typical smartphone today: the latter goes anywhere, and allows one to check on e-mail, to receive texts, and to look in on one's social networks. It's the multiple functionality that matters.
The point: Dedicated hardware, of the kind that the author is advocating, is on the way out. Netflix is to be commended for _not_ coming up with Netflix hardware. It is much more competitive by making itself available over any computer, including all variety of mobile devices.
A hardware based platform strategy and a multiple-devices strategy are not mutually exclusive. You can have both, and when you can , why not?
(The kindle reader app on multiple platforms is an example.)
But the millions of kindles that are sold today are definitely an advantage in the medium to long run. Same for all of Steve's devices. Given how powerful these devices are, they are not going away any time soon.
This all comes down to a distinction that is not made in the article at all. One has a choice in engaging the news: one can be a passive consumer of whatever gets thrown at one, or one can be a thoughtful consumer who directs one's own reading/viewing of the news. None of the issues mentioned by the author apply to the latter approach.
In a highly interconnected, multicultural, technological world, it is more important than ever for the ordinary citizen (let alone the entrepreneur, thinker, or "creative type") to be aware of what is going on in the world, and on every scale (global to local). The author's recommendation would lead to a radical disengagement that would be suitable only for those aspiring to be hermits or stylites.
Thing is, this kind of logic has been used before, to justify hiring strategies that left the unbalanced status quo untouched (whether in relation to gender, race, or whatever). This approach shifts the responsibility for the gender imbalance in STEM onto the educators (where, admittedly, some of the responsibility does belong), rather than placing it on the hiring mechanisms of STEM firms.
However, at the risk of mentioning the obvious, it is not the educators who are not hiring women into STEM positions, but STEM companies. If we want to see the gender imbalance change, that is where we have to address that imbalance.
To say this is not to take a position on Adria Richards. It's about the logic of the position, not the mis/behavior of some of that logic's adherents.
However, at the risk of mentioning the obvious, it is not the educators who are not hiring women into STEM positions, but STEM companies.
Can anyone provide any support for this claim?
That colleges pump out X% women STEM grads and Y% men and that companies hire X' women and Y' percent men where X/Y is less than X'/Y' ??
And ideally that would be followed up with the studies of the men and women STEM graduates that did not find jobs in STEM that tracked where they did find jobs, and if those jobs were second choices to a STEM job?
"This approach shifts the responsibility for the gender imbalance in STEM onto the educators (where, admittedly, some of the responsibility does belong), rather than placing it on the hiring mechanisms of STEM firms."
It's not just the hiring mechanism of STEM firms, it's the culture of these firms. I work at a larger company that has quite a few female software developers, and I can't imagine any of them even wanting to apply for a job in a company that consists of a bunch of macho guys who are trying to hire a "rock star" or "ninja" programmer to code 12 hours a day (a schedule that pretty much implies that they're looking for a young person with no life or commitments outside of work). These companies will never get the chance to hire them because they'll never have an interest in working there.
How did this status quo come about to begin with? Was it through gender discriminatory practices? Is it possible (I'm just asking here) that the gender "imbalance" is the equilibrium?
So is the imbalance addressed by showing more women that STEM is a valid choice from an early age or is it that we start at the firms and try to work your way backwards? At a certain point is it a systemic failure?
Here are some books that I have found worthwhile, for the complete and utter beginner--really, preliminary to learning about genomics itself:
--Matt Ridley (1999). _Genome: The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters_. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
--James D. Watson [yes, _that_ James D. Watson] (2003). _DNA: The secret of life_. New York, NY: Knopf.
If you have any interest in the application of genomic science to psychology, this is a good place to start (presuming a basic knowledge of, say, the contents of a good Psych 101 course):
--Robert Plomin, John C. Defries, Ian W. Craig, and Peter McGuffin [Eds.] (2003). _Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era_. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Don't _you_ have people you'd like to send to Mars?